[MUD-Dev] Re: processors

John Bertoglio alexb at internetcds.com
Thu Jan 28 23:10:08 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999


From: diablo at best.com <diablo at best.com>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 8:15 PM


>I hope this isn't the wrong forum to ask this question. If it is, I
>apologize.
>
>Achaea has recently run into processor-overload. We run a PII300 and now
>we are going to have to upgrade at least to a PII450. The other option we
>are considering is a Xeon-based machine. I am not a techie, but from what
>I understand, the Xeon chip is likely to be faster for a mud, as it
>doesn't fool around with all the MMX and other graphical bs on the Pentium
>line.

The Xeon has the full MMX extension set. While this serves little positive
purpose on a conventional server, it doesn't hurt either.

The Xeon is just a PII with a larger cache that runs at full processsor
clock speed (unlike standard PII which run the cache at half speed)

>However, I cannot find any benchmarks comparing the two in terms of
>pure processing powr. The Pentiums are always rated using graphical
>applications and the Xeons are not.


Check out the various server tests on various mag sites.

http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,371679,00.html

You will find that the Xeon does do a better job under load. Whether that is
worthwhile...only you can decide. The above article seems to suggest that if
your OS and application environment can take advantage of it, multiple
standard PII 450s seems to be a more cost effective way to get things
moving.

John Bertoglio

>


>So, I'm wondering if any of you know how much faster a Xeon is in terms of
>pure processing power than a PII450. I know it has a much larger cache,
>etc, but other than that, i'm clueless. The Xeon is a lot more expensive,
>and if it doesn't give a significant advantage, it's not worth it.
>
>Thanks for any help you can provide.
>--matt
>
>
>
>





More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list